Vote: 7-1 to ban cars on beach

Council to consider ordinance one more time

The vehicle ban on 7,200 feet of Padre Island beach is one week and a
few tweaks away from being a done deal.

Those for the ban outweighed its opponents both on the council and
in the 200-member audience. The City Council voted 7-1 Tuesday to close
the beach to vehicles after hearing some 30 people speak in favor of it
and about 20 people against it.

The group in favor of the ban focused on the need for a pedestrian
friendly beach and the economic growth a planned $500 million resort
community could bring to the area. Austin developer Paul Schexnailder,
who owns the land the resort would be built on, has said the beach
can't have cars if the development is going to take place.

"We need all of it," said Kathy Vandermolen, a Padre Island real
estate agent. "We need the money, we need the development and we need
the safety."

Those against it cited their distrust of the council's promises and
their concern that, regardless of parking lots and public restrooms,
the beach would in effect become private.

"This ordinance is going to restrict beach access. Period," said
Ellis Pickett, chairman of the Texas chapter of the Surfrider
Foundation. He made a trip from Liberty to speak at the meeting. "The
people who use the beach are being shunted away."

Councilman John Marez was the only council member who agreed with
him.

"We're being manipulated by those guys," Marez said of the
developers.

The vote passed the issue onto its second hearing, which is
scheduled for next week. Councilman Bill Kelly has abstained from all
votes on the issue because he owns property in the area.

The council has asked city staff to make a few changes to the
ordinance. The plan calls for the beach between the south jetty of
Packery Channel and Padre Balli Park to be closed to cars, but not
before passing several benchmarks. Two sets of parking lots, restrooms
and outdoor showers must be completed, a wheelchair-accessible ramp
over the seawall must be built and a sidewalk connecting one of the
parking lots to the jetty all must be built.

The developer also must show that the development actually is going
to happen. Before the first 1,800 feet can be car-free, the developer
must begin work on $75 million worth of construction. Before the
vehicle ban can be put into effect on the final 1,200 feet, the
developer must begin building the hotel and homes planned for the
area.

And although there was some discussion about taking it out of the
plan, an election asking voters whether the city's charter should be
amended to require voter approval on any future vehicle bans made it
through the meeting intact.

The changes the council asked for came, in part, from issues raised
during the public comment section of the meeting.

One thing several people were worried about was access to the
Packery Channel south jetty. The plan shows a 12-feet wide sidewalk
stretching from the north parking lot to the jetty. It's a distance of
1,500 to 1,800 feet, depending on where in the parking lot you start,
and several people believed that was too far a distance for surfers and
fishermen to tote their gear. Councilman Brent Chesney asked the staff
to see whether there was some way to move the parking lot closer or
provide some sort of transportation between the lot and the jetty.

Councilman Rex Kinnison wanted the wording changed so that
construction had to begin on both ends of the beach before cars could
be taken off. And Councilman Mark Scott suggested that the charter
amendment question, which had been scheduled for November's election,
be put on the April 2007 ballot to save the city money. It would have
been the only item the city had on the November ballot, so without it,
the city doesn't have to help pay for the election.

Those changes are not enough to satisfy the Beach Access Coalition,
who petitioned to have the issue put before voters last time the city
voted for a vehicle ban. That petition was made null and void when the
council rescinded its vote, but the coalition will be ready to start
over after next week's second reading.

"We'll meet Saturday and decide what we're going to do next," John
Kelley, a member, said. "Probably draft our new petition."